This blog exists to support liberatory collectivist activism that is anti-patriarchy, anti-colonialism, and anti-capitalism. It also seeks to center the experiences, theories, and agendas of radical and feminist women of color.

Wednesday, May 4, 2011

Anti-Semitism Rears Its Ugly Head in Muslim Press in Jakarta--leave it to someone in Germany to do so: Funny how we don't view White Christians as Dangerous, given them being in charge and all

The implication in the comments below the article in this post is that white Christians are good, and can only ever be subordinate to the Jew; and that Jews can only ever be assumed to be white. This is assumed even while that has never been historically true--ever. The fallacious idea--a potent one for fascists and oppressed anti-Semites alike--is that (white) Jews REALLY rule, but (white) Christians just APPEAR to rule. This is often what is said about women, and Black people, and the poor, of course.

Patriarchal media--and men themselves--tell us that men don't rule women; women rule men by being all seductive and shit--forgetting, neatly, that it is men that rape and harass and traffic women and girls, not the other way around; white media--and whites themselves--often tell us that whites don't rule Black people, it's Black people, after all, who get into colleges without the grades to back up the admission letters, forgetting, of course, that the matter of getting into colleges is often set by 'who you know' and 'who has money', and Black people, relative to whites in the U.S., have never had more money or more social capital: so generations of wealthier whites get in because their parents did--and not at all because of the grades; media owned, operated, and profited off of by the wealthy tell us that the poor are the greatest thieves of federal tax dollars in the U.S., not the rich, who steal by not even paying taxes, and who steal outright, in every way conceivable--by historically and currently taking land, taking resources, and taking lives.

This is why we cannot organise against the most powerful: because oppressed people always see the most powerful as never being the ones truly in charge; instead we focus on each other as the enemy. Sad. Sad. Sad. See below.

As long as white Christian het men in the U.S. who rule, are seen never to be in charge, how can they be appropriately held to account? As long as political ideologies-in-practice like, oh, say, male supremacy, white supremacy, Christian supremacy, and heterosexism cannot and will not even be NAMED, how can we organise effectively against white Christian het male supremacy? It is still being globalised and it does shape public and private policy around the world--without ever being named by the dominant cultural media.

What follows is an article and two comments from The Jakarta Post. Please click on the title below to link back.

As I watched US President Barack Obama announcing the death of Osama bin Laden with his body buried at sea after Saudi Arabia refused to accept it, I posted my reactions through my Twitter account.

“An ideology is hard to kill with the death of its advocates like Bin Laden, but his death can help reduce his global leadership.”

I tweeted further: “Osama and many terrorists have used Islam to sustain their ideologies and actions, but they don’t represent around 1 billion Muslims in the world.”

However, the death has meant different things to different people around the globe. Many in the US and elsewhere have welcomed and celebrated Bin Laden’s demise as a victory over the leader of number-one terrorist network al-Qaeda.

Obama thinks “we can all agree this is a good day for America”. Obama and Hillary Clinton pointed out that “justice has been served” for the victims of 9/11 in particular, and Americans in general. Many say “the world is now safer”.

American Muslim leaders, including that of CAIR (Council of American-Islamic Relations) welcome the death, because “Osama was a mass murderer”.

Muslim Senator Keith Ellison said Bin Laden was responsible for mass killings in the US, Pakistan, Iraq, Kenya, Tanzania and more, and had caused fear and suffering for many.

Some in the US have expressed their ambivalence toward the death: The killing of a man without trial is clearly not correct for them. Some would expect Bin Laden to have been captured alive.

Some, including self-proclaimed Christians, said “they do not rejoice the death of a human being, no matter how monstrous he was”.

“Judgment and punishment are up to God,” Christian author James Martin wrote. Although he prays that Bin Laden’s departure may lead to peace, as a Christian, he is asked to pray for Bin Laden and at some point forgive him, a command that comes from Jesus.

In Indonesia, when people are preoccupied with domestic problems, including how to deal with the spread of the Negara Islam Indonesia (NII, the Indonesian Islamic State) ideology, including in schools and colleges, mixed responses have been voiced in the media: Many have welcomed the death, whereas others, including the Nahdlatul Ulama (NU) moderate leader Said Aqil Siradj implicitly welcomed it but added that the Allied Forces in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and Libya could also be regarded as terrorists, radicals and uncivilized.

The US, he implied, should not demonstrate double standards, but serve justice in dealing with terrorism.

Some Islamist leaders have said Bin Laden’s death will not eliminate al-Qaeda. Prosperous Justice Party (PKS) president Luthfi Hasan Ishaaq said the death would have no direct impact in Indonesia because none of Bin Laden’s family has investments here.

He added that violence came from injustice and poverty, so violence would not stop if justice and prosperity were absent.

Another PKS leader commented that al-Qaeda was based on an ideology and had a developed organization and recruitment system and therefore terrorism remained a threat.

Some liberal progressive activists commented that it would be better if Bin Laden were captured alive so he could stand trial and people could hear what he had to say.

Progressive activists commented only a little. One simply observed that when a friend is killed the loss is mourned, but when an enemy is killed, it is rejoiced.

They seem to agree with an analyst that the loss of a symbolic, semi-charismatic leader whose own survival burnished his legend was significant, but that radicalism and violence were not about to end.

Many questions have been raised, including about the future of terrorist ideology: Will terrorism decline? Will the death of Osama bin Laden bring a new world order? How should the world leaders address the root causes of terrorism and reduce its spread in many parts of the world, including Indonesia?

The fatwas or edicts reportedly from Bin Laden have been read and translated into many languages. The edicts issued in 1996, 1998, 2004 and later years contained a global call to war waged against the US and mention some of the reasons for Bin Laden’s ideology of terror: Because of the US presence in the holy sites Mecca and Medina, the unqualified US support of Israel and of the US attacks on Iraq and other “Muslim soil”.

Bin Laden urges the Muslim world to kill American crusaders and Jews, combatants and civilians as well as whoever is in support of them.

For those who show support or sympathy, Bin Laden constitutes a symbol of resistance against the US power. Some observers like Middle Eastern historian Bernard Lewis have argued that Bin Laden was a model for anti-globalization, anti-Westernization and anti-modernism.

Other scholars comment that terrorists as fundamentalists have lived as by-product of modernity.

But the appeal of Bin Laden cannot be overstated because many fatwas were issued to reject such calls. Most Muslims have rejected terrorism, the killing of civilians and the use of violence.

The struggle and discursive debate among Muslim leaders and groups have intensified between those who agree with the ideas but not the violent tactics; those who reject violence and terrorism without qualification; those who sympathize with terrorists and those who commit similar acts of terror in London, Bombay, Manila, Bali, Jakarta and other places.

A survey conducted by Pew Research Center on Muslim publics around the world a few months prior to Bin Laden’s death indicates little support for the al-Qaeda leader. In the Palestinian territories, which he used as rationale for his war, only 34 percent expressed confidence in him to do the right thing in world affairs.

In 2011, about 26 percent of Indonesians supported Bin Laden, compared to 22 percent of Egyptians and 13 percent of Jordanians. These numbers dropped from the figures in 2003 and 2005. This explains why there have been fewer reactions to Bin Laden’s death in the Muslim world than in the US.

Now that Bin Laden has been officially confirmed dead, some people have remained concerned about the perpetration of his ideology.

Others have raised more ethical, philosophical questions about just war, patriotism based on killing, the value of human beings, violence to end violence, soft power and hard power, and the like. Others have pointed to addressing the root causes of terrorism and its circumstances.

The death of a world terrorist seems to have been welcomed by many, albeit in different ways, but this is not sufficient to make this complex world a safer place to live.

The writer is an assistant professor in Islamic studies, Religious Studies Department, University of California, Riverside.

Two disturbing comments were posted at the time I visited. Here they are:

Ahmad G. Ikram, Germany | Wed, 04/05/2011 - 16:05pm
Obama wants to win the next general elections. His advice come from the Jewish lobby, which has now accepts him as a good Christian. His Cairo Declaration some 2 years ago was a farce. Now he is clearly pro-Israel. Obama can perhaps win the next elections and improve his bad image in the US.

No president in the United States can win the elections, if he is not working closely with the powerful Jewish lobby. (Former President Jimmy Carter some two years ago told the plain truth in the CNN).

Moreover, the assassination method reminds me of the Israeli Army, Mossad or Zionists. [The current chief of the CIA is a Jew (Leon Paneta). He would be nominated the new Secretary of Defence in some weeks.] They kill the enemies in this way. The method of assassination has violated the dictum of Christian Agape (Love) for the enemies as well as the International Law. The man, who was assassinated was an inmate from a US Jail and the blood, which was shown in the bungalow of Osama in Abbotabad was probably the blood of this an US-Inmate.

Edo E., Jakarta | Wed, 04/05/2011 - 19:05pm
Yes, Ahmad, Osama has been dead for years, the question is: why now? My first thought was: the freezer, where they kept his corpse, went out of order and the body began irreparably to decompose. So the US-elite had to invent a mission, kill all enemies and throw the real (?) corpse into the sea. A picture of Bin Laden's alleged corpse has already been found of being a manipulated fake.

The Talmudic lobby (disguising as "Jews" to label every attacker as anti Semite) in the US controls the media, the big banks, the US-government, Wall Street and owns the Fed. These misanthropic monsters support Israel as long as it is useful for them, thus there will never be peace in the Near East. And they inflame the "clash of civilizations" to get rid of their 2 big enemies: Islam and Christendom, them being the laughing third party (the same since WW I). Interestingly enough, the latest news say that Bin Laden was "unarmed" when attacked. Together with the "leaked" pictures of Guantanamo, one can see the pattern: to make more Muslims hate the West, especially the USA. The Talmudists are pure evil.

And here's my response to those two commenters:

JulianReal, United States | Wed, 04/05/2011 - 23:05pm
To the commenters: Given that every U.S. president has been Christian, and given that all media is controlled by white Christians, and given that Christianity rules in the U.S., why it is you think Jews (who are not all white, by the way) possess a propagandistic secret power to rule the Western world--and to rule over white Christians, when historically that's never been the case: ever. You'd think if Jews did rule, that somewhere in the Judeo-Christian world Christians wouldn't appear to be on top each and every time. Do you really believe white Christian men, like George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, and Dick Cheney, were and are powerless people? (They're all Christian.) What would happen, I wonder, if Muslims and Jews realised that it is only white Christian men calling the shots and ruling the West?

P.S. And, if the "Jewish lobby" is so all-powerful, how come we've never had a Jewish president? Doesn't that kind of tell you maybe the "white supremacist Christian lobby" is even MORE powerful?

13 comments:

What really upsets me the most is how people are starting to see the strait white males as victims. Somehow the world’s worst oppressors have managed to safeguard their white male privilege by now getting the oppressed, namely women and people of colour to do their bidding.How is it that in parts of the world where the oppressor is not a white het male, the oppressed know that they are been oppressed and continuously strive to resist the oppression.Yet so many women and people of colour openly accept this oppression and try and protect their oppressors (this can be seen by the number of women who oppose feminism.It does not really matter what the belief system of these white het males are as at the end of the day they are the same.In the US you have the conservative white het males who support the Republicans and Tea Party. These white males are ultra sexist and racist. I wish they would all be rounded up and locked away where they can’t hurt anyone.Then you have the liberal white males who pretend to be pro women and people of colour. But in the end it turns out that this is a big cover for a hidden agenda. I think they should also be locked up with the conservative white males.In the US do you see much of a difference in the levels of sexism, racism and homophobia being applied by the conservative vs. the liberal strait white males?

It is sad to see the oppressed defend and protect their own abusers and dominators.

In the U.S., the only major difference between the liberal and the conservatives shows up at the edges of each: the progressives will not support policies put forth by the ultra-WHM Supremacist extreme right-wing.

But, institutions don't shift here because of liberals or progressives. The nation-state remains virulently pro-genocide--indeed, liberals seem to not even know there is a genocide going on here against Indigenous people and often ask me for "proof" when I argue that this is the case. And "rape" is not seen as a matter of institutional and nation-state politics, but rather a matter of what some "sick" men do, as if only sick men rape. "Well" men commit rape. Men trying to prove their masculinity commit rape. Men who learn what sex is from misogynist pornography (aka "pornography") commit rape. Many husbands and fathers serially rape their daughters and wives, yet this is not understood to be a major political issue by either liberals or conservatives, in large part because men across the white male supremacist political spectrum want to be able to have 24/7 access to women and girls.

You might hear about some celebrities take up the issue of trafficking, usually pretending it isn't something happening here.

I agree with you: neither the liberals nor the conservatives in the U.S. care to put women's liberation--from men and male supremacist institutions, laws, industries, and customs--at the center of their political concerns, campaigns, and activism.

I think the title of your post is a little misleading. The article itself is not biased. It is the people commenting, one from Germany and one from Jakarta who are accusing "Jewish Lobby." Maybe this Jewish Lobby does have some power in the U.S, perhaps, more than the Muslims or Blacks lets say, but what this Edo Jakarta person is saying is simply stupid in terms of Jewish people trying to create conflict between the two biggest religions in the world (both being larger than the Jewish popualtion.)

I wanted to be careful to locate what I was seeing in the press, not in the culture. It is there: in the press. In many places such bigotry would not even be allowed into the press. So that's a decision of the newspaper to allow such bigoted comments, which are directly linked to the global persecution of Jews. I specifically state the problem is in the comments section. I may rework the title given its effect or implication, however. Thank you for letting me know how it came across to you.

I respond strongly to such language and inferences because these are the exact same stereotypes that flourished in Nazi Germany, and my challenge is that unless and until Jews and Muslims work together against the "International Christian White Male Supremacist Lobby", we won't get far towards liberation for any of us. And the article does goes out of its way to promote "Christianity" as "good".

I am militantly against Jews promoting or supporting anti-Muslim bigotry and violence. I'm for Muslims stopping all forms of anti-Semitism: and seeing it as a problem of the globalisation of the values and practices of white male supremacy, where and when that is the case. (I realise the problem everywhere isn't a form of white het male supremacy.)

The problem with the Israeli government's military policies in and around Israel, for example, isn't that the leaders are Jewish: it's that they're behaving like white supremacists--it's the Jews from whiter Europe that brought this with them. See "Yurugu", by Marimba Ani, for much more.

Even you reinforcing this idea of a Jewish lobby is anti-Semitic. I realise you put it in quotes at first. But it ought not ever be written outside of quotes--on this blog, anyway--and we ought to be critical of it as a propagandistic idea we all need to be concerned about. Jews aren't just white, after all. And many have to deal both with anti-Semitism and racism, including anti-Muslim bigotry that dovetails in ugly ways with anti-Semitism in some ways.

And, readers, there is no Muslim lobby in the U.S.--needless to say. The FBI is already tracking organised Muslim activity--regardless of what it is!!--in the U.S. And the CIA tracks the rest.

It's not just that the Muslim and Christian populations are larger than the Jewish one. But if we're measuring religious-identified people only, then there's really no comparison. There are twice as many Sikhs, globally, and approximately 30 times as many Buddhists. Most people in my experience think there are about as many Jews as Muslims, or more Jews. But of course most people who aren't Muslim are grossly ignorant both about Islam and the Muslim populations the world over.

You mentioned that some celebrities take up the issue of trafficking, this issue is also currently been dealt with by CNN.I think this is a very important issue as it has two very negative out comes. As you rightly pointed out it creates the impression that such horrors do not happen in countries like the USA, that they only happen in third world countries. This can also create the impression that men of colour are the biggest threat to women and girls as this starts in their countries and they are not doing anything about it. Simultaneously it creates the image that most white males are completely innocent of such horrid crimes, and where maybe in third world counties, women and girls are being oppressed, this kind of atrocity would never happen in the US. Sometimes, when I listen to white males talking about trafficking, I wonder how many of them have raped an underage girl of colour.

The second issue is that by hearing many white males creating the illusion that they care about trafficking, they come across as heroes. Clearly non-white males are the ones who enslave women and oppress them, while it is the white male who comes to their rescue. No wonder no one wants to stand up to the white males. If white males are not being portrayed as victims then they are being portrayed as heroes. Even feminists are falling for this.

Now more then ever we must get the word out in order to reveal to the world the truth about strait white males.

I realise that when people read what you wrote, they don't get that "white" and "male" and, in my lingo--"het" doesn't mean what someone is. It means what someone does. Those are adjectives, descriptions of structurally located behaviors that, when acted from places of arrogance, ignorance, and privilege, do a lot of destruction. And almost every single het white man I know denies he is part of "that group", which is part of his privilege--to deny being part of any group he doesn't want to be affiliated with.

It's structural and its institutional, and until and unless those structures and institutions radically change, there's more of the same for the oppressed--including, especially, girls globally, who are so frequently raped by white het men that it's a wonder how it is no stigma attaches itself to them.

I do know that in some Asian countries, white het men who both live in Asia and travel to and from the many regions which comprise it, are well-known for being the scumbags, the predators, the perpetrators, who arrive with a very entitled attitude and practice regarding what these race-, sexuality-, and class-privileged men think women and girls are for. This reality needs to be widely accepted and, as you say, these predators need not to be propped up as heroes.

It's not that other demographics of men cannot be predators of course. It's that all other demographics other than white het men are already stigmatised as such.

Well, perhaps I'm suffering from the illusion that there isn't blatant anti-semitic propaganda in Muslim press, and it happens more behind closed doors or through readers regurgitating what they learn in Mosques.

In any case, there is enough divide between Muslim and Christian. Just look at Egypt or Pakistan or India even.

Sorry for using the term "jewish lobby," but America does back Israel because of the role Jewish people play in the economy.

America is not Christian or Jewish. It is all about money, and power. Extremist/ Wahhabis target America not even Israel, because America is the root cause of support even the actions against Palestinians are carried out by Israelis.

I used to pity Japan because of the bombings and then of course, people love talking about Japanese people just like they love talking about Jewish people because these people are "intelligent, rich and productive."

However, when I learn about the ambitions of Japan or its disregard of other people, and on the other hand, its utter atrocities despite the suffering of its own people, then I do not question, how can people who suffered so much cause suffering to other people?

I'm going to ask you to be very careful when posting comments here, not to reproduce anti-Semitic ideas and beliefs, as well as attitudes.

Please.

Well, perhaps I'm suffering from the illusion that there isn't blatant anti-semitic propaganda in Muslim press

I believe there's blatant anti-Semitic beliefs in most places that are not Jewish-led or ruled, as I believe there are anti-Muslim beliefs expressed by most areas in which Muslims do not live a a majority or in leadership. But Jews don't control the fate of Muslims, globally. Only Christians and Muslims have that power. Jews in Israel, following Judaic laws or not, rule one tiny speck of the Earth, one that can be bombed out of existence, quite easily. This would not be possible to do to the Christian countries or Muslim ones either--although white Christian-run Amerikkka is sure trying its best.

and it happens more behind closed doors or through readers regurgitating what they learn in Mosques.

In the U.S. presses run by Christian whites, it is overt, clear, unrepentant. Why you won't acknowledge this is not clear to me. Do you agree that's true of the press in the U.S.: that it is blatantly anti-Muslim?

In any case, there is enough divide between Muslim and Christian. Just look at Egypt or Pakistan or India even.

And there isn't enough divide between Jews and Muslims? Who is oppressing us both, Amna? Who rules the largest and most powerful--if shaky and sinking--empire on Earth? Jews? No. Muslims? No. That leaves on mega-faith: Christianity.

Sorry for using the term "jewish lobby," but America does back Israel because of the role Jewish people play in the economy.

You follow up an apology for an anti-Semitic phrase with something else that is anti-Semitic. Please stop doing that here, Amna. If future comments contain such statements--not backed by anything at all except propagandistic and stereotyped belief--I won't publish them. What do you know of the role of the Jewish people here? Where did you learn about that history? Can you please tell me. I'd like to know where you are getting your knowledge from.

You appropriately called me out on the earlier title of this post for misidentifying the role of anti-Semitism in the press in Jakarta, or in one newspaper in particular. But I'm going to call you out when you do anti-Semitic things here--when you perpetuate dangerous or wrong ideas about Jews here.

The U.S.'s military policies and geopolitical endeavors have very little to nothing to do with any U.S. Americans and our welfare or well-being. In fact, our far-too-high military budget is harming the people of the U.S. The U.S. government backs Israel because of where Israel is located geopolitically. If Israel were not in the Middle East, for example, and if it were in, say, Central Africa, or in Scandinavia, we would not see the U.S. government be so concerned in keeping a "friend" there. And, I would argue, the number of Jews in the U.S. has little to do with how we behave there. White Christian men want control of the region, for the resources--geopolitical and natural--it can mine from that part of the world.

It is ruled by Christians, Amna, while "technically" not being a nation governed by one religion. In fact it is a nation-state ruled by one people who are overwhelmingly white, male, and Christian. There's no evidence to the contrary, unless one believes that women really control men, and that people of color really control whites, which to my view is nonsense.

The U.S. pretends, on some legal levels, to keep Church and State separate, but anyone who grew up here can tell you the force of the Church here, in instilling in most everyone some sense of shame or pride in some forms of sexual expression, for example: in shame about sexuality generally, merged with pride among het white men for being sexual aggressors and predators.

To say it isn't a Christian nation is only partially true, I'd say. Some would and do say that because the U.S. is a multi-ethnic and multi-racial society, it isn't ruled by whites. Or that because women and men live here--and because women are "free" here (which is nonsense), it isn't ruled by men. Or that because we don't kill or imprison all our lesbian women and gay men this is not a country ruled perversely by heterosexism, and by heterosexuals. But, nonetheless, it is ruled by white Christian het men, and not anyone else.

About this:It is all about money, and power.

I agree--it is all about hoarding wealth and keeping in good working order the mechanisms and means by which to exercise power-over others.

Extremist/ Wahhabis target America not even Israel,

I'm not sure what point you are making: that some groups see the U.S. as ruling Israel or controlling the direction and destruction of it's military occupations? No doubt. As so many non-Jews see Israel as controlling the world. The U.S. has a lot of power, and does covert operations in many places, to topple governments, to keep certain leaders in place, to get out of those countries what it feels it must, for its own "national security" which at this point generally means it's quest for total global domination, so that if anyone threatens it in any way, it can swiftly destroy them.

Nonetheless, Israel is not some misbehaving child of the parent U.S. It does have its own mind and mission.

Pakistan gets over one billion dollars in aid from the U.S. Does that mean that Pakistan is ruled by the U.S.? I don't think so. Because what the U.S. needs of Pakistan is access to land masses, and the ability to fortify its military troops in the area. And it is willing to pay Pakistan a lot of money for this privilege.

because America is the root cause of support even the actions against Palestinians are carried out by Israelis.

The root cause of support and even the actions against Palestinians? What does that mean, Amna? Please explain. Are you saying that Israel couldn't or wouldn't oppress Palestinians were it not for some orders from the U.S. to do so? What's your evidence of this, if that's your position?

The Israeli government is an increasingly white/euro male supremacist militarised body, governing in the ways that most white het male supremacist militarised bodies behave--with racist, xenophobic, and misogynist uses of force and aggression, some of which are specialised and particular to the region--to the land, to the people who live there, to the history there, etc.

Regarding this:I used to pity Japan because of the bombings and then of course, people love talking about Japanese people just like they love talking about Jewish people because these people are "intelligent, rich and productive."

I don't believe the people of Japan want or need your pity or your scorn and ridicule. They are a deeply human people, like all other people.

Regarding this, Amna:However, when I learn about the ambitions of Japan or its disregard of other people, and on the other hand, its utter atrocities despite the suffering of its own people, then I do not question, how can people who suffered so much cause suffering to other people?

I think this blog's many posts has made it clear that one can be both an oppressed person and an oppressor too, and belong to a group or nation-state that is comprised of oppressed people who behave in gravely oppressive ways. There's no reason the U.S., Canada, or Japan should be exceptions to this: we are all human, after all. The U.S., as a major empire, has committed far more atrocities than most countries in the last couple of hundred years, however. And continues to. Not because of any Jews living here either. Because of an ethos and practice borne out of Christian European white male supremacist societies. Jews have not had as much influence or power as many non-Jews claim, including you, Amna.

And, for the record, I never said that the Ottoman Empire "learned imperialism from Whites"--and I know you weren't saying I did. But I just want to be sure that's on record. Have you read Yurugu, by Marimba Ani? What are your thoughts on the premises of that book?

When it comes to India, Sikhs are remarkable for not having asked for another country (as far as I know), unlike the Muslims of Pakistan. That's just my opinion, and as I've mentioned earlier, I find most HET men and their ideology dangerous because the dominant religions and societies of the present day are mostly patriarchal. I am not against a particular race or religious group.

Amna, the comment above that you wrote was deleted by Blogger when they had a few problems a few days ago. Fortunately I had a copy of it and so have posted it myself directly. Thank you for it. I'm sorry it took a few days to get posted here.